X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10ffde,9caf003b450c4de0
X-Google-Attributes: gid10ffde,public
X-Google-Thread: f996b,9caf003b450c4de0
X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-06-20 02:20:30 PST
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.ascii-art
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!crosfield.co.uk!rak
From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Subject: Re: Venusian R. comedy,REQUEST ASCII-ART ELECTRON CLOUD DOT  PICTURE
Message-ID: <1994Jun20.091711.3879@crosfield.co.uk>
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK
References: <2tv2ll$gei@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 09:17:11 GMT
Lines: 49
Xref: nntp.gmd.de alt.sci.physics.plutonium:1377 alt.ascii-art:11746

>  The irony I was struck with by reading the above comedy is that a
>person can turn chemical symbols into words and vice versa. But try to
>make an electron cloud dot pictures on the INTERNET is too difficult. I
>again plea for anyone to make electron cloud dot pictures ascii art.
>The below are useful texts to refer to electron cloud dot pictures.
>INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC SPECTRA by Harvey White 1934. It is a shame
>they do not print this book any longer.

If you can get your image scanned in and converted to a GIF then there is a
program for converting these to ascii.  The result may not be prefect, but
it will be a good starting point.  Post that on a.a-a and I expect someone
will rise to the challenge of hand-diddling the thing to look good.  However
to expect them to hunt out a book that's been sixty years out of print 
seems a bit mean.

>On page 71 it shows twenty four
>pictures of hydrogen electron clouds. One of them is the 5f6, the one
>which looks like a human being or two humans close together.

The shapes are rather fun, but the are hardly ever assumed by real electrons.
If something has electrons up to 5f6, it is probably a metal, and the outer 
electrons all part of the conduction band.  Unless it is hydrogen I don't
think we have an exact theory about orbital shapes - we have to do Hartree-
Fock (?sp) -type calculations, so there are interesting possibilities of other
energy minima with (say) dodecahedral symmetry that our iterations have never
found.  Anyway the electrons would only form those nice shapes if you had an 
isolated atom suspended in dark space, in which case you couldn't prove they 
were there.

>The book QUANTA by Atkins 1991 page 119 shows f orbitals shapes. A
>drawer would have to do a dot pattern.
>
>PHYSICS part 2 Halliday & Resnick Extended Version 1986 page 572 with
>enlarged view of nucleus.

These are a bit better than the earlier reference, but I haven't got those 
either.  You scan the pictures, and we'll diddle them if they look fun, okay?

Humble opinion: I think some of the religous fervour, mysticism, and
general heavy-duty weirdness sloshing around these postings puts people 
off a bit.  Especially when cross-posting.

N:N <- token bit of ascii-art: the curse of the Mummy's smiley!

-- 
.adBBba. Ba.   A              VquuudB   ,B B.    B         Richard Kirk
"'B  ,B" _`S"b B.Bb .dBb .B dBBB.   B.aP"  _"B. JB.aPb     rak@crosfield.co.uk
  BaP"  .B B .JB? B B. B.BBV B  B   BK.    B  BP'BCdP'     
 .B `~VaP' VBP B  B? VB?' B  `bd'   B "~aaBP  B  B "Vbaa   0442-343361